Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

January 14, 2008

When Gun Rights and Property Rights Collide

by Stephen Littau

THE ATLANTA JOUNAL-CONSTITIUTION - Calling it “a core fundamental issue” for his group this year, the head of the National Rifle Association lobbied hard Monday for a bill that would allow employees to keep handguns in their cars at work.

NRA Executive President Wayne LaPierre made a rare appearance under the Gold Dome Monday, a week before the Legislature convenes, to push the bill with key lawmakers.

My first instinct was to be on the side of the NRA. “What right does an employer have to prohibit me from having a firearm in my vehicle?” and “What right does my employer have in even asking and/or searching the contents of my car?” were my first thoughts. But then it occurred to me that we are dealing with a voluntary relationship between private citizens (an employer and an employee) that can be ended at any time for any reason by either party (assuming we are operating on the principle of life, liberty, and property). An employee of a company has a choice to either honor his employer’s wishes or find another job because the employer has obligation to allow employees to park on his or her property at all.

As Ayn Rand once said:

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

My false initial premise was that the right to bear arms was otherwise being infringed by the government but in fact this is not the case. In fact, this proposed legislation would be a violation of private property rights. McQ at QandO blog made a couple of very good points on this issue:

If you come to the door of my house wearing a pistol on your belt, I have every right to bar your entry and tell you that isn’t allowed in my home. It’s my property and I have the right to control who enters it and what goes on within its boundaries. Why wouldn’t that extend, as well, to the driveway?

[…]

And for the same reason I object to legislation which bans smoking on private property such as bars or restaurants. It is none of the state’s business. They’re welcome to ban smoking in every public venue they control, but stay away from private property. Camel’s nose, slippery slope and all that. Why do you suppose they feel empowered to go from banning smoking on private property to now dictating that private property owners must allow guns on their property?

Because we let them get away with the smoking ban, that’s why. While I don’t smoke and prefer a smoke free environment, I don’t agree that government has a role in deciding that for owners of private property, any more than I’d agree they could dictate whether anyone could smoke in my house.

There are plenty of causes the NRA is and should be leading when it comes to the Second Amendment. This is not one of them.

Freedom is sexy, so share!Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/14/when-gun-rights-and-property-rights-collide/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •
  • http://www.kipesquire.com KipEsquire

    I blogged about this issue ages ago, coming to the same conclusion.

    Great minds think alike…

    ;-)

  • Ben Miner

    I don’t agree that employers should be allowed to bar employees from keeping a legal object in their personal vehicle. The “but it’s private property!!” argument doesn’t hold water. There are already a plethora of restrictions on private property when it comes to the employer/employee relationship, such as OSHA and fire codes. Should an employer be allowed to forgo smoke detectors or keep emergency exits locked? Of course not, because there are minimum acceptable workplace standards when it comes to employee safety. Should an employer be allowed to break into the cars on its parking lot and steal radios? Of course not, because the law recognizes that, regardless of whether it’s public or private property, stealing is illegal. To take it to an extreme, should an employer be allowed to rape the employees, because after all they are on company property! Of course not for obvious reasons. Why should the right to self-defense be any different?

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/ Adam Selene

    Well, as for me Ben, I don’t think any of those things on private property should be regulated. I would support requiring disclosure of what safety measures the employer has chosen to implement, but not forcing them to implement them. I would support the creation of a standard for safety in commercial and public buildings. I would support the enforcement of said standard in government buildings by the government. I would support employees right to bring lawsuits when they have had injury caused by not meeting such safety standards.

    And I would support that the employer has a perfectly legitimate ability to decide what another person may, or may not, bring on to their property.

    Please note that the regulations you are discussing prevent employers from doing things that may endanger their employees and other people on their property. You are asserting that the government should force employers to not enforce a property right because it makes you feel better. This is a much different scenario. Now, I happen to oppose those regulations of privately owned property, which makes me consistent. You, however, don’t appear to be very consistent.

  • UCrawford

    Sometimes even people on the right side of an issue go overboard and end up pushing the wrong solution. The NRA’s no exception it appears.

  • http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3770/ Bill Starr

    I am still on the page that the employer oversteps his bounds to dictate that you may not have a firearm secured in your vehicle while you are at work, under penalty of losing your job.

    This in effect dictates that you must potentially choose between your job and having the means of self-defense readily available while driving to and from work each day.

    Regarding McQ’s comment that “If you come to the door of my house wearing a pistol on your belt, I have every right to bar your entry”, this is not analogous to the situation. A better analogy would be whether you would let someone in your house if they had a firearm locked in the trunk of their car in your driveway or parked in front of your house on the street.

    Regards, Bill Starr
    Columbus, Indiana
    Tue, 15 Jan 2008, 7:56 am EST

  • fsilber

    I put this in the same category as an employer who makes putting out for the boss a condition for his secretaries’ employment.

  • http://GunNewsDaily.com R Weller

    “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” — Ayn Rand

    Check your premise. Does an employer have the right to tell an employee what they can have in their car? No, because the right of the employee to put what he wants in his car is his or her decision.

    The employer’s rights are not being violated. They have no liberties being abridged in any manner because of a rifle in the trunk of an employee’s car, or a pistol for which the owner has a concealed carry permit. The employer has not lost rights. He has not lost control of anything. No liberties have been infringed. The only person that no longer has a right is the employee who is told what he puts in the trunk of his car is someone else’s right to control.

    You have a right to prevent any person or object a person has from entering your home. That is your right, and being forced to accept anything in your home is a violation of your rights. But, do you have a right to determine whether the same person visiting your home has something in their car trunk that you don’t like? Is that an infringement upon your liberties, especially if you don’t know what’s in their trunk?

    The employer’s right ends at a person’s locked car, whether they have a firearm in the trunk, a dead cat or a bag of dope. If the employer insists that they want to inspect the contents of one’s car, just to see if something is present that attacks their view of what private property their employees can or shouldn’t have, that is way out of bounds. It’s none of their business.

  • Chris Smith

    Ayn Rand is wrong – there are plenty of contradictions in this world. These arguments are immaterial to the real world – we do not live in a libertarian fantasy land, but in a world in which the State has already heavily regulated what is and is not allowed in the workplace. And in such a world, if the State allows employees to keep guns in their locked cars, then it is within their power to do so, just as it is within their power to require smoke alarms and emergency exits.

  • UCrawford

    Chris,

    “we do not live in a libertarian fantasy land, but in a world in which the State has already heavily regulated what is and is not allowed in the workplace”

    It’s the state whose premise is wrong, not Ayn Rand’s.

  • Bill

    All of you that think the employer has the right to tell you you are fired because you have an legal item locked in your trunk are absolutely dead wrong. What you are really saying is that the employer’s property rights trump yours. Is that what you are advocating? That whoever has more money has more rights? It would seem that I have run into a bunch of victims of the public school system. I certainly do not thave the right to demand a search of anyone’s car who comes to visit me at my home, but all of you claim a company does? What are you people thinking?

    And Ann Rand was wrong about contradictions and a lot of other things.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/ Adam Selene

    Chris, R Weller and Bill Starr, let me know if you would agree that I can put anything I want in the trunk of my car and then park that car on your property? Would it be okay with you if it was a pistol? A rifle? A bomb made from fertilizer and ball bearings? A nuclear bomb? Radioactive waste? Do you, as the owner of the property, have any say so?

    A corporation is not a government. They are not violating my rights, simply putting a choice in front of me. If I disagree with their rules on their property, I can find another employer.

    Oh, Chris, I’m not talking about a libertarian “fantasy land”, I’m just talking about what I see as the best way to do things. Now, that isn’t our current reality. You are, in fact, correct that the state can regulate what a business can do on their privately owned property, and have the power to enforce that regulation. That doesn’t mean that I agree that they are right. Are you suggesting that we citizens should just give in and not speak out when we think something is wrong?

  • http://jasonpye.com/ Jason Pye

    I’ve been paying close attention to this issue because I live in Georgia.

    The NRA has done a lot of damage to itself here. They have bullied State Senators to get a floor vote, which they are going to get. They are pitting two very valuable individual rights against each other here and it’s going to backfire on them.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/ Adam Selene

    Bill:

    What you are really saying is that the employer’s property rights trump yours.

    This is like a small vessel on board a larger vessel. It’s a point of common law and maritime law that the smaller vessel is subject to the orders and regulations of the captain of the larger vessel. It’s also a point of common law that if you bring your property onto my property, I have the ability to regulate what it is and what you do with it. I can’t seize it, for example, but I can require you to remove it. Your car isn’t immune to that concept, nor the firearm within it.

    I certainly do not thave the right to demand a search of anyone’s car who comes to visit me at my home

    Why not?

  • Bill

    Adam, since I have no right to search your car, I would have no way of knowing what you have in there. However, talking about radioactive waste and nuclear bombs really takes away a lot of your credibility, that is a silly and immature argument. You sound like one of those hysterical antis you rail about. The argument that you have a choice, in this day and age where you are lucky to have a job, is plain stupid. Especially if you live in a rural area where jopbs are extremely hard to come by and things are getting worse. You are right about one thing, a corporation is a legal fiction and therefore has no rights.

  • Bill

    Adam, you are just getting ridiculous now. Of course you do not have the right to search a vistitor’s vehicle. Why don’t you try it next time you have a party and see how far you get.

    One cannot be part of common law and maritime law at the same time. Also, you may have the right to regulate what I do with something I bring on your property, but if it is locked in my trunk, you wouldn’t even know that I brought it with me.

  • http://www.keepandbeararms.com Lee McGee

    If the employer on his/her private property decides to racially discriminate against employees or violate child labor laws, should that be allowed as well?
    Additionally, having a weapon securely stashed within the employee’s privately-owned automobile is hardly the same as carrying the weapon throughout the facility during the workday.

    Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or we live at the whim of executive directive, judicial fiat or legislative overreach.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Lee,

    If the employer on his/her private property decides to racially discriminate against employees or violate child labor laws, should that be allowed as well?

    Many libertarians would argue that they should be permitted to do both of this things if they wanted.

    Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or we live at the whim of executive directive, judicial fiat or legislative overreach.

    The Constitution does not apply in this situation. The 2nd Amendment only applies to state action, not private action. If I decide that no firearms are allowed on my property, or that my employees may not listen to Rush Limbaugh on their radios, that is my right.

    You may disagree with my rule, but the Constitution does forbid from making it.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Lee,

    “If the employer on his/her private property decides to racially discriminate against employees or violate child labor laws, should that be allowed as well?”

    Yup, right to free association and the right to property (meaning the owner’s place of business and the right to hire who he wants). Those are essential to a free society. Is it wrong to discriminate based on race? Absolutely, and if I’m the competitor of a guy who discriminates against him I’m going to make the guy pay by scooping up all the employees he refuses to hire for stupid reasons.

    “Additionally, having a weapon securely stashed within the employee’s privately-owned automobile is hardly the same as carrying the weapon throughout the facility during the workday.”

    You’re right, however since the car is parked on the owner’s property he has a right to demand access to it. If the employee doesn’t like that he can park across the street or take the bus into work, or find a job with a boss who’s not an asshole.

    “Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or we live at the whim of executive directive, judicial fiat or legislative overreach.”

    None of what you’re arguing for is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to own and carry firearms is not being violated by a private individual demanding that people not carry guns onto his property (including the parking lot) at the potential cost of their employment. The owner’s property rights are, however, being violated if someone chooses to bring their gun onto his property against his express wishes.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/ Adam Selene

    Bill:

    Adam, since I have no right to search your car, I would have no way of knowing what you have in there.

    Once again, explain why you have no “right” to search my car if I bring it on your property? I may tell you to go to hell, in which case you are perfectly within your property rights to ask me to take my car off your property.

    Adam, you are just getting ridiculous now. Of course you do not have the right to search a vistitor’s vehicle.

    Please explain why I legally, within common law, your state’s laws, the Federal Code and the Constitution, I cannot demand to search your car when you bring it on my property but the owners of an amusement may search my backpack when I walk through the gate?

    One cannot be part of common law and maritime law at the same time.

    Well, yes it can. Explain why it can’t.

    Also, you may have the right to regulate what I do with something I bring on your property, but if it is locked in my trunk, you wouldn’t even know that I brought it with me.

    Again, explain what gives you the right to refuse my request to search you and your property when you come on to my property? You could refuse and leave, but you couldn’t refuse and remain on my property.

    Lee McGee:

    If the employer on his/her private property decides to racially discriminate against employees or violate child labor laws, should that be allowed as well?

    Well, that’s a logical fallacy, but let’s tackle it. I believe the Constitution does not allow the government to regulate my personal behavior, or the behavior of a private employer, related to race or gender. The state, however, should act when someone’s rights to life, liberty or property are violated. If you abuse a child, you have violated the child’s rights and caused injury. That’s wrong whether you are a private individual or a private employer.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/ Adam Selene

    What you guys are asking for is the state to violate my property rights in order to enforce your privilege to carry a firearm wherever you want to carry it. You don’t have a “right” to do that, you have a right to “keep and bear” firearms.

  • Bill

    First of all, it is not a priviledge to possess a firearm. Second, if we follow you argument to its logical conclusion about allowing anybody to search your property wherever you happen to be, you will never get a firearm home from the gun shop, let alone be able to travel to the range or hunting lands. This is a big problem here in Illinois as many towns have restrictions like you are talking about and people have been arrested and charged for having a firearm locked in their trunk, traveling to the range or to a hunt. They were doing nothing more than passing though the town and were pulled over and searched. Although not in violation of State law, they were in violation of local town law and arrested, charged. They were forced to mount a legal defense at large cost to defend themselves for basically nothing.

    You are also denying me my basic right to self defense when I leave your premises and travel to where ever it is I am going. Are you going to take absolute responsibilty for my safety and well being while I am enroute to various locations?

    I don’t agree with the searches they are doing at amusement parks, stadiums and the NY subway and I would never visit such a park, attend a professional sporting event or ride the NY subway for that very reason.

    Why can’t something be both common law and maritime law? Well, then there would be no need to distinguish between to two would there?

    If you insist on searching everyboy’s car that visits you, you either do not have any friends or family or you hang around some real low lifes.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    “First of all, it is not a priviledge [sic] to possess a firearm.”

    No, but it’s a privilege for you to be able to carry it onto my property.

    “Second, if we follow you argument to its logical conclusion about allowing anybody to search your property wherever you happen to be, you will never get a firearm home from the gun shop”

    You mean like by driving/walking down a public street where the government has ownership? Since the government is required to uphold your right to keep and bear arms (except on other peoples’ property) you’re safe under our arguments.

    “This is a big problem here in Illinois as many towns have restrictions like you are talking about and people have been arrested and charged for having a firearm locked in their trunk, traveling to the range or to a hunt. They were doing nothing more than passing though the town and were pulled over and searched. Although not in violation of State law, they were in violation of local town law and arrested, charged. They were forced to mount a legal defense at large cost to defend themselves for basically nothing.”

    We oppose all of those intrusions by the government (as long as it’s not on private land) because it’s the government’s infringement of your rights…not a private individual upholding their own property rights. Hell, send me an article about it and I’ll do a story about how fucked up the government is on that assuming there isn’t a violation of private property rights going on.

    “You are also denying me my basic right to self defense when I leave your premises and travel to where ever it is I am going.”

    If your buddy doesn’t want you to have a gun in your car when you’re parked in his driveway, park in the street. Public land. Or find a less nosey group of friends. Then you won’t have to be worried about being unable to fire back if you’re ambushed on the drive home.

    “I don’t agree with the searches they are doing at amusement parks, stadiums and the NY subway and I would never visit such a park, attend a professional sporting event or ride the NY subway for that very reason.”

    As long as the team owns the stadium I’ve got no problem with the searches…they should be able to do what they want on their own property. If it’s a publicly owned stadium I’m against them, not because I think it’s the worst idea ever, but mainly because I think it’s wrong for cities to own stadiums for professional teams because it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars I think they should be forced to bear the consequences of that. I’m okay with being able to keep and bear arms on the subway. Kansas has a carry-concealed law and I think it’s great.

    “If you insist on searching everyboy’s car that visits you, you either do not have any friends or family or you hang around some real low lifes.”

    If it got to the point where I felt they needed to be searched, they likely wouldn’t be friends of mine for much longer. But if a situation arises where I felt a need to conduct a search I’m glad I have the right to do so as a private property owner. Shit happens.

  • Knute

    First off, there is no such thing as private property in this country. Just refuse to pay tribute to the government and see how long you own it. As to the company’s private property rights, they’ve given them up by allowing themselves to be regulated by the government. Rights only exist until you allow them to be regulated away. So now the government, the arbiter of all rights, may decide that you have a right to keep a firearm in your car on private property. The company is losing some authority and you are gaining some. It is not a perfect balance ever. Just enjoy the fact that you might be able to protect yourself if you work at some company that wants to deprive you of that right.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Bill:

    First of all, it is not a priviledge to possess a firearm.

    I never said it was. I said it was a privilege to bring your firearm on my property. Or do you disagree that I have a right to determine who and what is on my property, since I own it? I am not claiming, at any point in this, that you don’t have a right to own a firearm.

    Second, if we follow you argument to its logical conclusion about allowing anybody to search your property wherever you happen to be, you will never get a firearm home from the gun shop, let alone be able to travel to the range or hunting lands.

    So long as you are obeying the laws regarding how you may carry a firearm, that just isn’t true. It’s a strawman argument.

    This is a big problem here in Illinois as many towns have restrictions like you are talking about and people have been arrested and charged for having a firearm locked in their trunk, traveling to the range or to a hunt. They were doing nothing more than passing though the town and were pulled over and searched. Although not in violation of State law, they were in violation of local town law and arrested, charged. They were forced to mount a legal defense at large cost to defend themselves for basically nothing.

    First, see UC’s excellent response. Second, those towns, etc. were wrong and I’ll be happy to say so publicly in a post on this site. Third, if the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment there will be no question on this and those municipal, county and state laws will be appropriately superceded by the Constitution. However, we are waiting on the Supreme Court case, which we have written about on this site already.

    You are also denying me my basic right to self defense when I leave your premises and travel to where ever it is I am going. Are you going to take absolute responsibilty for my safety and well being while I am enroute to various locations?

    I am not denying you a basic right to self defense. I am telling you to make a choice. Leave your gun at home when you come to my house or find a way to leave your gun off my property. At no point have I denied you anything or violated any of your rights. Your individual rights, by the way, do not trump my individual rights just because you don’t like my choices. Sometimes you have to make a choice in your life. You don’t get to demand your rights and force me to not have mine.

    I don’t agree with the searches they are doing at amusement parks, stadiums and the NY subway and I would never visit such a park, attend a professional sporting event or ride the NY subway for that very reason.

    I don’t agree with those searches on public property where a citizen or resident has done nothing to create probable cause. That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment, which is clearly already incorporated by the 14th. On private land is an entirely different matter, and the topic of discussion.

    Why can’t something be both common law and maritime law? Well, then there would be no need to distinguish between to two would there?

    But there is. In some cases, let’s say inland water ways, maritime law may not apply. In fact, it is quite possible for common law, applying to a specific item, to be in disagreement with statutes and codes applying to other specific items. All of that is still subject to the Constitution, though.

    If you insist on searching everyboy’s car that visits you, you either do not have any friends or family or you hang around some real low lifes.

    I didn’t say that I insist on that. I said that I could if I wanted to. Why start making veiled personal attacks? I haven’t attacked you at all personally.

  • Bill

    Adam, sorry if you took it that way, I wasn’t insulting you personally, no offense intended. I just meant that I would never invite anyone to my home that I felt needed to be searched.

    No it is not a strawman argument, many people have been arrested and charged with a crime for simply driving through a town. They were obeying all State laws regarding the transport of a firearm, but where unaware that this particular town banned firearms. And, it is not they were wrong, it is they are wrong, because this type of thing is still happening. Also, if a gun shop is in a strip mall with other businesses and the other businesses claim your position, how would anyone ever take a firearm into or out of the gun store? Are you OK with letting two or three or more other business owners to dictate to the gun shop owner about what he can do in his place of business? Are you saying they can force him to move? What if he will incur large penalties if he breaks his lease? What if he has just invested large amounts of capitol and cannot get it back if he is forced to sell right away? What if cannot sell the building in a timely fashion, like in this real estate market we have today? Should he be forced to suffer financial damages, up to and including the loss of his livihood because the other owners do not like guns and insist their property rights trump his?

    Of course you have denied me my rights. If I come over to visit you and I am forced to leave my gun at home because you do not allow guns on your property, even locked in my trunk, and I get robbed, car jacked or murdered on my way home, you are responsibile. You denied me my basic right of self defense. Of course, I would never visit a person voluntarily who felt this way, but sometimes we are forced to go places we would rather not, ie work. Bottom line to me is, you are claiming that one person’s property rights trump mine.

  • motoboy

    If the employee is required to travel to and from work on his/her own time the employer should have no right to demand that said employee travel in a completely helpless manner.

    Some of you are failing to balance the employee’s right to life with the employer’s right to have property.

    Which is more important, do you think: the right to Life, or the right to Property?

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Motoboy,

    There is no conflict between individual rights when they are properly understood.

    It does not violate your right to life if I have a rule that you cannot bring firearms onto my property, even in the trunk of a locked vehicle. Your right to life, or your right to keep and bear arms free from government interference, does not obligate me to allow you to violate my property rights.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Bill:

    Of course, I would never visit a person voluntarily who felt this way ….

    That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. It is your choice to go there, or not. You don’t have to work for that employer, you don’t have to take your firearm with you. Try seeing all of this from the perspective of someone who believes that everything is individual responsibility and refuses to blame any choice made on someone else. If you can, you have found my perspective. At the end of the day, every single choice is mine and only mine, and I solely bear responsibility. If I agree with a law, I obey it. If I don’t, I choose to disobey it and bear responsibility for that action. If I agree with your restrictions on your property, I go along with them. If not, I leave or ignore them. Either way, I’m solely responsible for that choice, and no one else is.

    This philosophy is completely independent of the government, culture and society around me, by the way, and does not require that they be any sort of “-ism”.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    “many people have been arrested and charged with a crime for simply driving through a town. They were obeying all State laws regarding the transport of a firearm, but where unaware that this particular town banned firearms.”

    We agree with you that this law sounds really wrong. I wasn’t joking about my offer, by the way, send me a link so I have a starting point for some research and I’ll do an article about it if it’s the way you say it is.

    “Also, if a gun shop is in a strip mall with other businesses and the other businesses claim your position, how would anyone ever take a firearm into or out of the gun store?”

    If a strip mall with a gun store in it refused to allow the gun store’s patrons to take their gun out of the shop I find it very unlikely that a) that gun store would have patrons, or b) that gun store would remain in that strip mall (they’d relocate).

    “Are you OK with letting two or three or more other business owners to dictate to the gun shop owner about what he can do in his place of business?”

    No, unless the business owner in question was leasing the property his business was on from the other two and they weren’t violating the terms of the lease by dictating conditions.

    “Are you saying they can force him to move?”

    Not if he’s also the property owner. As far as I’m concerned townships and states that do that through zoning laws and regulation are wrong.

    “What if he will incur large penalties if he breaks his lease? What if he has just invested large amounts of capitol and cannot get it back if he is forced to sell right away? What if cannot sell the building in a timely fashion, like in this real estate market we have today?”

    Those are the same dangers that any businessman faces regardless of what business they’re in. It’s not a valid defense for your position that you have a right to do what you want on somebody else’s property.

    “Should he be forced to suffer financial damages, up to and including the loss of his livihood because the other owners do not like guns and insist their property rights trump his?”

    Yes…sorry, but that’s the downside of being a renter. If you don’t like it and you own a gun store, buy the land you’re on instead of leasing. Then we’ll be sticking up for your property rights.

    “I come over to visit you and I am forced to leave my gun at home because you do not allow guns on your property, even locked in my trunk, and I get robbed, car jacked or murdered on my way home, you are responsibile.”

    Actually the person who carjacked/murdered you is responsible.

    “You denied me my basic right of self defense.”

    No, I denied you the ability to violate my property rights.

    “Of course, I would never visit a person voluntarily who felt this way, but sometimes we are forced to go places we would rather not, ie work.”

    Are you saying that you’re forbidden from ever quitting your job or finding a different job? Because I’m betting that’s not the case.

    “Bottom line to me is, you are claiming that one person’s property rights trump mine.”

    Whenever you’re on their property, yes, their property rights trump yours. Same as yours trump theirs on your property. See how that works?

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Adam,

    How do I put the quotes in a block like you did? The format I’m using for them sucks.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Put it in a blockquote: <blockquote>the text you want to quote</blockquote>

    That will make it look like this:

    the text you want to quote

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    If this works, then thanks :)

  • Harry Rossman

    There are a three issues with companies or corporations initiating searches of employee vehicles for firearms.

    First and foremost, only the police have the power to search and then only with reasonable suspicion that some violation of the law has been committed. If there is suspicion that a company employee has been stealing or otherwise directly damaging the company business, the employer has a number of ways to remedy this. A vehicle search with no search warrant and no police is not one of them. This also holds true for private land and property owners.

    If a company decides that an employee is causing damage to the company and convinces the police that a search warrant and search of his vehicle are necessary, that search warrant must specify just what is being looked for and where. No police department anywhere has any duty to enforce the policies of a business. Only the laws passed by government. Business policies are not law. Many states allow businesses to post signs prohibiting firearms in the business, but this does not extend to any parking associated with the business. See my point about responsibility.

    The police have no duty to the business to disclose to the business any item found which is not specifically mentioned in the search warrant. Nor should they.

    Second is responsibility. declaring your business and/or property to be a gun free zone directly transferrs the responsibility of individual protection to the business or property owner. The police do not have a duty, legal or otherwise, to protect individuals. Their duty is to enforce the law. Period. This may or may not include protection of individuals depending on how the police see the situation.

    Third. I am not a lawyer, but an interesting court case would be the contract signed by an employee specifically giving up one or more legally recognized individual rights as a condition of employment. I am willing to bet that when the smoke clears, companies will not be able to make this type of condition in general.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/stephen/ Stephen Littau

    I think the NRA’s pushing of this legislation is going to have unintended consequences. It probably didn’t even occur to very many employers that some employees might have firearms in their vehicles. Now people who have done just that without their employers knowledge might be forced to making a tough choice.

    Nice job NRA!

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Harry,

    First and foremost, only the police have the power to search and then only with reasonable suspicion that some violation of the law has been committed. If there is suspicion that a company employee has been stealing or otherwise directly damaging the company business, the employer has a number of ways to remedy this. A vehicle search with no search warrant and no police is not one of them. This also holds true for private land and property owners.

    The business owner has no right to break into his employees’ cars to facilitate a search. He does have the right to request that they let him search the car, they then have a right to refuse, he then has a right to ask them to leave or fire them.

    No police department anywhere has any duty to enforce the policies of a business.

    No, but the business owner has the right to enforce his own policies and to determine who has access to his property under which conditions and who he employs.

    If a company decides that an employee is causing damage to the company and convinces the police that a search warrant and search of his vehicle are necessary, that search warrant must specify just what is being looked for and where.

    Business owners don’t need a search warrant…they’re not the government and it’s their property they’re on. They only need the employee’s consent to search the vehicle, and they’re perfectly justified in holding the employee’s job over his head if he doesn’t provide it.

    declaring your business and/or property to be a gun free zone directly transferrs the responsibility of individual protection to the business or property owner.

    No, it doesn’t. If the employees feel unsafe there, though, they’re free to leave and find a different job.

    The police do not have a duty, legal or otherwise, to protect individuals. Their duty is to enforce the law. Period.

    What the fuck are you talking about? The law is meant to protect individual rights, so yes, the police do have a sworn duty to protect individuals.

    an interesting court case would be the contract signed by an employee specifically giving up one or more legally recognized individual rights as a condition of employment.

    That would be an interesting case. However I find it unlikely that such a company would ever exist so I’m not holding my breath for that case to surface.

    I am not a lawyer

    No kidding?

  • Anonymous Chief Security Officer

    I am a chief security officer of a company with more than 50,000 employees and over 160 work sites. I think I can shed some light on this, since we have a (somewhat modified) policy regarding firearms on our property. This policy, by the way, has been reviewed by a wide variety of attorneys, including our company’s General Counsel.

    I realize that I am writing this anonymously, and there is good reason for that. Brad, the owner of this site, knows who I am and can put you in contact with me privately if you have any doubts of my authenticity.

    While I am not an attorney, I can tell you that a business does have the legal ability to request that you open your property so that they can search for specific items that are prohibited on their property. They cannot force you to do so, but they can deny you access to their property, even if you are an employee and need to go to work. Think of Disneyland, privately owned property, where all people entering the property are voluntarily searched, as a well known example.

    There’s been at least one court case testing this, down in Florida.

    By the way, the law in more than 25 states in this country make the employer responsible for preventing workplace violence. The responsibility you are claiming would exist from such a policy already does exist in the majority of the workplaces in the nation under state laws.

  • Bill

    Sorry Adam, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. You cannot force me to be defenseless and your arguments are just that, forcing me to give up my right to self defense because I have to come on your property. You can claim all day along that your property rights trump mine, but I will never accept that. If I am attacked on the way to or from your property and the only reason I am unarmed is because of your insistance that I be, you will bear some responsibilty. With this argument you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

    As the previous poster said, you have no right to search my vehicle just because it is on your property and you “feel” like it. Technically, you would need probable cause and you would need to convince a cop that your probable cause is sufficent to convince a judge to sign a search warrant specifically stating what is to be searched and what they are searching for. You are giving way too much away with this stance.

    Ok, let’s try the gun shop scenario again. I buy a store front in a strip mall and open a gun shop. Later, other people come along, purchase the other store fornts and open stores. We share a community parking lot for all of the stores in the strip mall and all of us own it equally. The other owners are opposed to my gun shop and now force me out because of the laws that you propose. Do I understand your argument correctly? That their property rights trump mine? After all, they out number me and by joining together they “own” more of our community lot than I do. So it is well within their property rights to destroy my business?

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    ACSO,

    By the way, the law in more than 25 states in this country make the employer responsible for preventing workplace violence. The responsibility you are claiming would exist from such a policy already does exist in the majority of the workplaces in the nation under state laws.

    I stand corrected on that point. Thanks for the feedback.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Bill,

    As the previous poster said, you have no right to search my vehicle just because it is on your property and you “feel” like it. Technically, you would need probable cause and you would need to convince a cop that your probable cause is sufficent to convince a judge to sign a search warrant specifically stating what is to be searched and what they are searching for. You are giving way too much away with this stance.

    You are correct that Adam or I, as employers, would not have the right to break into your car and search it.

    However, we do have the right to ask you to let us search it and, if you refuse, to refuse to allow you on our property.

  • Bill

    I also love this argument that you are free to quit and find another job. That is so unrealistic it begs the question; do you live in the real world? Many people are stuck with the job they have and do not have an option to find another one. The reasons are as various as people themselves, vested interest in the company, economy, location, no competitors within range, rural area where jobs are extremely hard to come by, etc.

    Ucrawford, you are dead wrong about the duty of the police to protect individuals. You obviously are not aware of several court rulings stating quite the opposite which absolved the police of any responsibilty for people being killed and injured.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Harry,

    Third. I am not a lawyer

    Obviously

    but an interesting court case would be the contract signed by an employee specifically giving up one or more legally recognized individual rights as a condition of employment. I am willing to bet that when the smoke clears, companies will not be able to make this type of condition in general.

    Well, Harry, I am an attorney and I can tell you that such conditions in employment contracts are not only legal but quite common. Most major corporations require drug testing as a condition of employment and random drug screening during employment. They don’t need probable cause or a warrant. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit this as the employer-employee relationship is private and not covered by the 4th Amendment.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    Technically, you would need probable cause

    Actually that’s the cops who would need probable cause to search your vehicle. If you’re on my property I can request to search your vehicle for no more reason than that I’m an asshole, and I don’t need the involvement of the police at all. Although you’re free to reject my request and I’m free to tell you to leave.

    As to your scenario:

    I buy a store front in a strip mall and open a gun shop. Later, other people come along, purchase the other store fronts and open stores. We share a community parking lot for all of the stores in the strip mall and all of us own it equally. The other owners are opposed to my gun shop and now force me out because of the laws that you propose. Do I understand your argument correctly?

    If I’m understanding your scenario correctly, the only way in which they could force you out if you actually own the property that your store is located on is by denying you access to the communal parking lot. If that’s the case, I’d say that you made a bad investment in not insuring that your rights for ownership stake in the parking lot were protected for the spaces allotted to your store with a contract spelling out what your rights were. If control over your parking spaces aren’t determined by you or by a contract you’re a signatory to but merely by a majority vote of strip mall residents, you don’t actually own the parking lot so there’s not a lot of room to complain when the other strip mall owners gang up on you because your rights to the parking lot basically are whatever the majority says they are.

    I guess the object lesson here is “Don’t get involved with communal property”.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    That was an interesting example though and if you’re stuck in that situation I could see why you’d be frustrated.

  • Anonymous Chief Security Officer

    Doug the attorney:

    Well, Harry, I am an attorney and I can tell you that such conditions in employment contracts are not only legal but quite common.

    In fact, my company’s code of conduct states that the employee agrees not bring firearms on to company property. It also states that the employee understands that they have no right to privacy when engaged in company business, on company property or using company property (not the exact wording, but pretty close). The employee must read, agree and sign the code of conduct (we’ve gone to electronic signatures, but you get my drift). Similar policies and codes have been tested in court for other “rights”. Every attorney I know believes that this code of conduct would stand up in court if I request to search someone’s vehicle, purse, bag, etc. and then they are terminated from employment for refusing to allow me to search while they are on my property.

    What the NRA is asking the legislature to do is remove a property right that I currently have. They will also make it much more difficult for me to adhere to the workplace violence laws in most states my company operates in.

  • Anonymous Chief Security Officer

    A final point. My company’s code of conduct has been tested in court, including terminating an employee who refused to take a drug screening. The ex-employee’s defense was that we had violated the 4th amendment with an unreasonable search and seizure. The court disagreed.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Bill:

    That is so unrealistic (ed: quitting and finding another job) it begs the question; do you live in the real world?

    Yes, I do live in the real world. And I have quit and found another job when I objected to my employer’s policies and actions. Like I said, you always have a choice, and you are responsible for your choice. To include not quitting because you are worried about finding another job.

    The truth is, the vast majority of us have a boundary we won’t step over for our employer, something that would cause us to quit. You just don’t think this should be such a boundary.

    As I tell my son fairly often, the price of a thing is what you are willing to pay for it.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    I am an attorney and I can tell you that such conditions in employment contracts are not only legal but quite common. Most major corporations require drug testing as a condition of employment and random drug screening during employment. They don’t need probable cause or a warrant. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit this as the employer-employee relationship is private and not covered by the 4th Amendment.

    Then I stand somewhat corrected, although I was thinking more about businesses that would be able to beat or torture you at work for doing a bad job if you signed a contract giving them authority to or that could make your life forfeit for bad performance (although some illegal businesses do this, but that’s another argument). I was thinking of the more extreme examples, but you’re right, some businesses already do have you sign away Constitutional rights to privacy in exchange for your employment. Of course, it’s still ultimately your choice whether or not you want to work for those companies.

    I need more caffeine…brain running somewhat slowly today.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    some businesses already do have you sign away Constitutional rights to privacy in exchange for your employment.

    I am going to quibble with that sentence for this reason —- for the most part, there are no “rights to privacy” in a Constitutional sense when we’re talking about a completely private relationship like employer-employee.

    There are some laws that create such right in certain situations (i.e., the doctor-patient relationship) but I think we need to get away from the notion that the Constitution is involved at all when we’re talking about two private individuals interacting in a consensual transaction.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    ACSO,

    In addition to drug-screening, the other situation that springs to mind is use of company computers.

    Before I became self-employed, I was lucky to work for company’s that had pretty liberal internet usage policies, but I always remembered that I was using the boss’s computer and his internet connection and proceeded accordingly.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    Ucrawford, you are dead wrong about the duty of the police to protect individuals.

    No, I’m not. They’re public servants who serve us. They’re not our masters.

    You obviously are not aware of several court rulings stating quite the opposite which absolved the police of any responsibilty for people being killed and injured.

    Show me each specific case and I’ll point out where the police were either justified in what they did because the individual killed/injured provoked the response in a manner not consistent with exercising his individual rights, or I’ll point out where the courts fucked up and gave a pass to a brutal cop who exceeded his authority. Without specific real-life examples, however, your argument has no value for discussion.

    I also love this argument that you are free to quit and find another job. That is so unrealistic it begs the question; do you live in the real world?

    Yup, I left a career field two years ago where I had ten years invested (halfway to retirement) so I could go into a completely different job field where I had no experience because I disagreed with the policies of my former employer. I recognize that it’s not something that everybody would be willing to do but I also don’t buy into this victim mentality that people are incapable of taking control of their own lives when they’re unhappy with their direction…if you’re in a bad situation at work or in life, it’s because you choose to remain in that situation.

    “Many people are stuck with the job they have and do not have an option to find another one.”

    Bullshit. It may not be an attractive option to find another job, you may have to uproot your life to change, and your new job may not be one you enjoy as much as your old one, but you always have the option of finding new work. Most people are just unwilling to do it because their level of unhappiness hasn’t outweighed the level of security they feel from staying in their current miserable job.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    I am going to quibble with that sentence for this reason —- for the most part, there are no “rights to privacy” in a Constitutional sense when we’re talking about a completely private relationship like employer-employee.

    I agree. I’ve never thought otherwise with that point, I’m just botching how I make my arguments today :)

  • Bill

    Yes Adam, almost there. Let me clarify; I bought the store before anyone else was there. I thought I had secured my property rights, including the communal parking lot, when the deal closed. The contract says nothing more than the property includes an equal share in the community parking lot. Months later, the new owners came in, bought their stores and banded together to shut me down using your property rights argument.

    We can always come up with statements like secure your rights before you buy or don’t get involved with community property, but this is not reality. These type of scenarios are more common than you would think. It is impossible for one person to know everything about everything when they are concentrated on starting a new business or engaged in a huge endeavor. It is easy to tell someone after they lost everything, well you should have done this or you should have done that. The reality is little things like this are easily overlooked when you have bigger things on your mind. Even having a top notch real estate attorney is no gaurantee that you will not get screwed over down the road if we let laws like this hold sway.

    I also do not agree with the drug testing and I was amazed the courts let it stand. It is a clear violation of my person and I find these policies repugnant to their very core. I hold the companies that implement them and the people who support them in contempt. Also, what does this tell you about the company? It tells me they do not trust me, that I am guilty until I prove my innocence and they have extremely unqualified people engaged in the recruitment process. However, again we must deal with the real world and it is now almost impossible to find a job that does not require this intrusive testing. You may have some luck at the very small mom and pop type of businesses who cannot afford to spend a couple of hundred dollars to test each prospective employee.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    We can always come up with statements like secure your rights before you buy or don’t get involved with community property, but this is not reality.

    I agree, and there’s no way to ever plan for every contingency, but they still didn’t violate your rights by what they did because they adhered to the contract that you signed. Although I will say that I consider what they did a shitty thing, even if it was in their rights to do so. But that’s just life sometimes and it’s the risk any businessowner runs, regardless of whether they sell guns, or make floral arrangements, or run a strip club. I’m hazarding a guess that whereever you relocate to you won’t be putting yourself in a position to get nailed on the same parking lot issue again, though?

    These type of scenarios are more common than you would think. It is impossible for one person to know everything about everything when they are concentrated on starting a new business or engaged in a huge endeavor. It is easy to tell someone after they lost everything, well you should have done this or you should have done that. The reality is little things like this are easily overlooked when you have bigger things on your mind. Even having a top notch real estate attorney is no gaurantee that you will not get screwed over down the road if we let laws like this hold sway.

    That’s just what happens sometimes. It’s the same as if you didn’t think you’d need flood insurance on your property and suddenly the levee by the river broke and wiped out your store. Or if your store got robbed and the insurance company wouldn’t pay because the thieves got in because one of your employees accidentally left the back door unlocked. Even the best planning sometimes goes wrong because of unforseen events.

    I also do not agree with the drug testing and I was amazed the courts let it stand.

    They had to unless they were willing to say that employers have no right to set conditions in their workplace.

    I hold the companies that implement them and the people who support them in contempt. Also, what does this tell you about the company? It tells me they do not trust me, that I am guilty until I prove my innocence and they have extremely unqualified people engaged in the recruitment process.

    It tells me that if I have a problem with the drug-testing that employer is probably going to be a very poor fit for me anyway.

    However, again we must deal with the real world and it is now almost impossible to find a job that does not require this intrusive testing. You may have some luck at the very small mom and pop type of businesses who cannot afford to spend a couple of hundred dollars to test each prospective employee.

    It’s the fact that those corporations won’t hire everybody that makes those small businesses and mom and pop stores possible by providing them with an affordable source of labor. That’s actually a good thing.

  • http://www.noangst.blogspot.com Mike

    I also do not agree with the drug testing and I was amazed the courts let it stand. It is a clear violation of my person and I find these policies repugnant to their very core. I hold the companies that implement them and the people who support them in contempt.

    How do you figure? The company has the right to determine what, if any, substances they are okay with me ingesting, just as I have the right to choose what, if any, company I’m going to go to work for. If they want to, they would be perfectly within their limits to impose a no alcohol policy and test for that. I submit that such an employer wouldn’t get very many employees, but that’s beside the point.

    To put it another way, I agree to give up certain freedoms as a member of the military. I am free to find a new “employer” if I don’t agree with one of their policies (as many people did during the ’90s, with regard to “Don’t ask don’t tell” and some of the other social engineering policies that were put in place.)

  • Bill

    Ucrawford, well bully for you! Tell that to my brother in law in northern Wisconsin who has no options to change jobs and cannot move because his family is in the area and need him there. Tell that to people in area where real estate has plummeted and find themselves upside down on their mortgages. Tell that to people who are care takers for terminally ill or elderly family memebers. This argument is just unbelievable, I can’t believe you even try to make it, this is an argument from arrogance. It is not possible for everyone to quit their jobs, relocate to a new State hundreds or thousands of miles away and find a new job, this is the exception rather than the rule.

    As far as the court cases, here is one I found in less than two seconds on google. Why do I have to do your research for you? Do you have a secretary who reads you the daily news? If so, they missed this topic completely. Wake up and see the world around you for a change.

    Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

    It is right there in black and white form a high cvourt ruling, one of literally hundreds, and you have never heard of them? That makes me question your credibilty, where have you been for the last decade?

  • Bill

    It seems to me that most of you are all for the rights of big business and the government to dictate to you how you are going to live your life, but woefully short on individual rights. Is this a collectivist website?

    Mike Your military example is way off base here. When you sign up with the military you are giving up alot more than “certain rights” you gave up ownership of yourself. And, try to find a new employer if you are in the military and you haven’t made it to the end of your tour, good luck. I’ll bet you’ll be in Leavenworth for awhile before you start your new career.

    You also seem to be lacking in your knowledge of the testing process and how certain “drugs” act within your system. One could test for alcohol, but it flushes out of your system in 48 hours. So, I can get hammered on Saturday, still feel like crap on Monday, but you won’t find any large amounts of alcohol in me. The same with cocaine, it flushes the system in 24 hours, so I could go on a bender and on Monday you will never prove it. However, weed stays in your system for up to 6 months, so if you smoked pot two weeks ago on vacation, you will still prove positive upon your return to the office. Prescription meds, all of them are just fine with the corprorations though, I can be high as a kite on vicadin and nobody at the office can do anything about it. The drug testing policies of this nation are insane, and if you think it is about safety at the workplace, you are sadly mistaken.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    “Tell that to my brother in law in northern Wisconsin who has no options to change jobs and cannot move because his family is in the area and need him there. Tell that to people in area where real estate has plummeted and find themselves upside down on their mortgages. Tell that to people who are care takers for terminally ill or elderly family memebers…It is not possible for everyone to quit their jobs, relocate to a new State hundreds or thousands of miles away and find a new job, this is the exception rather than the rule.

    It is always possible to find new work, it just isn’t always desirable to do so. The examples you cited are instances where the individuals’ situations make it undesirable to find a different job. But if there’s no other way to survive I suspect they would, in every one of those situations.

    This argument is just unbelievable, I can’t believe you even try to make it, this is an argument from arrogance.

    I’m actually not attempting to belittle you or anyone else by making these arguments. I respect the fact you got screwed on your store and you have my sympathy. But I’m not willing to agree that we should strip other people of their property rights when they didn’t violate yours. Property rights are a fundamental basis of a free society…start destroying those and you might as well just impose a socialist police state.

    “As far as the court cases, here is one I found in less than two seconds on google. Why do I have to do your research for you?”

    Because you’re the one trying to use the “police can do what they want” argument as a defense for your position. And no, I don’t have a secretary.

    Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

    It’s my opinion that if this is the case not only is the ruling one of the biggest farces in the history of the extremely farcical D.C. government but it’s my further opinion that if this case was not overturned on appeal it should automatically absolve the citizens of D.C. of their obligation to abide by the city’s restrictive gun laws or to even pay taxes to the city. Hell, you can even make a case as far as I’m concerned that this should empower them to act as their own police force and set up their own courts. I’d be all in favor.

    It’s a case of the court dropping the ball and making a shitty ruling, it doesn’t change the fact that the police are our servants and are obligated to serve and protect us as individuals.

  • Harry Rossman

    Business owners don’t need a search warrant…they’re not the government and it’s their property they’re on. They only need the employee’s consent to search the vehicle, and they’re perfectly justified in holding the employee’s job over his head if he doesn’t provide it.

    Personally, I find this draconian, and very challengable, as legal possession of a firearm essentially outside of the scope of business other than just because is essentially an accusation without evidence or cause. I.E. a witchhunt. Especially if the employee is a long term one.

    As I see it, one of the basic principles of our legal system is to provide a framework within which accusation, investigation and trial are the norm, and cannot be abrogated without very unique circumstances and agreement by both parties when fully explained.

    My company’s code of conduct has been tested in court, including terminating an employee who refused to take a drug screening. The ex-employee’s defense was that we had violated the 4th amendment with an unreasonable search and seizure. The court disagreed.

    Random drug testing is a vital concern for business as both the product and customer relations are directly at stake. However, it is not anywhere in the same class as company security picking cars at random to search on pain of separation without any real chance of due process.

    In fact, my company’s code of conduct states that the employee agrees not bring firearms on to company property. It also states that the employee understands that they have no right to privacy when engaged in company business, on company property or using company property (not the exact wording, but pretty close). The employee must read, agree and sign the code of conduct (we’ve gone to electronic signatures, but you get my drift). Similar policies and codes have been tested in court for other “rights”. Every attorney I know believes that this code of conduct would stand up in court if I request to search someone’s vehicle, purse, bag, etc. and then they are terminated from employment for refusing to allow me to search while they are on my property.

    What is your definition of a “Right”???

    What the NRA is asking the legislature to do is remove a property right that I currently have.

    Companies and businesses don’t have rights. They have agreements and limited powers. What the NRA is asking the legislature to do is nullfiy 100,000 or more small sovereigns which operate outside the usual framework of law and society.

    What the fuck are you talking about? The law is meant to protect individual rights, so yes, the police do have a sworn duty to protect individuals.

    Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

    The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

  • Harry Rossman

    It’s my opinion that if this is the case not only is the ruling one of the biggest farces in the history of the extremely farcical D.C. government but it’s my further opinion that if this case was not overturned on appeal it should automatically absolve the citizens of D.C. of their obligation to abide by the city’s restrictive gun laws or to even pay taxes to the city. Hell, you can even make a case as far as I’m concerned that this should empower them to act as their own police force and set up their own courts. I’d be all in favor.

    It’s a case of the court dropping the ball and making a shitty ruling, it doesn’t change the fact that the police are our servants and are obligated to serve and protect us as individuals.

    Try this link:

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#5

  • Bill

    First of all, some of you are under the impression that I was the one who got screwed on the store and I wasn’t. I was just thinking of scenarios where this could become a very costly problem for someone, sorry for any confusion.

    Of course anything is possible, the question isn’t if it is possible, but realistic. The fact of the matter is that people become trapped in situations out of their control and to tell them they have options when they really do not is ridiculous.

    Impose a socialistic police state, you mean like the one we have now? Or one that is even worse?

    No the case was not overturned and there are literally hundreds more like it all across the country. In every instance I have come across the ruling was the same, the police are under no obligation to protect any individual citizen. So, yea, OK, let’s tell the people of DC their government is illegitimate and they don’t have to obey it anymore and see how far that gets anyone. I would say the same thing about the federal government, but we all know what happened to the last group of folks who tried that.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    “Personally, I find this draconian, and very challengable, as legal possession of a firearm essentially outside of the scope of business other than just because is essentially an accusation without evidence or cause. I.E. a witchhunt. Especially if the employee is a long term one.”

    That’s probably because you’re not a lawyer. You also appear to be hostile to the fact that business owners have property rights, which isn’t going to win you any points here.

    Random drug testing is a vital concern for business as both the product and customer relations are directly at stake. However, it is not anywhere in the same class as company security picking cars at random to search on pain of separation without any real chance of due process.

    Actually they’re completely related. And due process is for when the government searches your car, not private individuals on their own property to whom you’ve given consent. But of course you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t believe in property rights.

    What is your definition of a “Right”???

    Nice fallacy of the complex question. On the subject of property rights my simple definition is “If I own it, it’s mine and I can do what I want with it. If someone else owns it, it’s theirs and they can do what they want with it. If I’m not happy with what somebody else chooses to do with their property I’m perfectly free to mind my own business and not associate with them (and vice versa).”

    Companies and businesses don’t have rights.

    Nice straw man. Companies and businesses don’t have rights…but their owners do.

    What the NRA is asking the legislature to do is nullfiy 100,000 or more small sovereigns which operate outside the usual framework of law and society.

    No, what they’re asking us to do is throw out property rights to support the right to carry a gun into somebody else’s home or onto somebody else’s property without their consent. That’s what’s called a “home invasion”. I’m all in favor of a property owner being allowed to shoot home invaders…especially if they’re an NRA member who obviously doesn’t believe I have a right to property. As far as I’m concerned those people fall under the same category as a psychopath or a thief.

  • Bill

    Here is the link to just one article detailing the fact that many, many courts across the country have ruled police have no duty to protect:

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

    It is really quite enlightening and shows that the government has absolved itself of any responsibilty to those of us who pay for these alleged “services”.

  • Bill

    Well then do large corporations who have no owner have property rights? Like, for example, Microsoft. No one individual owns Microsoft, it is run by a board of directors and the executive staff. Is the largest share holder considered the owner for property rights?

    I can agree that I do not have the right to carry a gun into my workplace, but I cannot accept the fact that the company I work for can order me to be defenseless during my commute by not allowing me to keep a firearm locked in my trunk out of sight. Where do you feel my property rights end and their’s begin. I say it is at my car door or trunk lid. Unless I give them specific reason to suspect me of causing mayhem.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Harry & Bill,

    You both seem to be under the mistaken impression that I’m against gun ownership. I’m actually for pretty much unlimited gun ownership (on your own property or in public). I’m just not for your right to carry arms onto somebody else’s property without their consent. The right to bear arms, after all, was set up to protect a property owner’s rights…not to infringe on it.

    Bill,

    “First of all, some of you are under the impression that I was the one who got screwed on the store and I wasn’t. I was just thinking of scenarios where this could become a very costly problem for someone”

    My response remains unchanged.

    Of course anything is possible, the question isn’t if it is possible, but realistic.

    No, the question is one of possibility not probability (or “realism” if you prefer).

    No the case was not overturned and there are literally hundreds more like it all across the country.

    And I disagree with every one that came to the same conclusion. Besides which the Warren case would not have come into conflict with my argument about the rights of private property holders to bar guns from their own property because the women in the case had their property rights violated by the intruders, they had every right to defend themselves by using lethal force, and I believe the police did have an obligation to respond because D.C. has the most draconian gun ban in the entire country because, I suspect, of how their system of governance is set up and because they’ve been run by some of the shittiest politicians in the history of the U.S. and their courts are apparently staffed with fucking morons for judges.

    Now if you’re going to use the argument that if these women would have had guns they could have not been raped, I agree, the city was absolutely wrong (especially Constitutionally) for not allowing people to protect themselves, especially since the cops weren’t willing to do their jobs. If you’re arguing, however, that this case has anything to do with what we’re talking about (the right not to own a gun or the right to non-violently do as you see fit on your own property) then you’re just wasting everyone’s time with an irrelevant argument.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Well then do large corporations who have no owner have property rights? Like, for example, Microsoft. No one individual owns Microsoft, it is run by a board of directors and the executive staff. Is the largest share holder considered the owner for property rights?

    Of course they do. The Board of Directors represents the owners, the shareholders. The fact that there’s more than one owner doesn’t mean the entity doesn’t have property rights.

    Accepting the argument that it doesn’t would mean that it would be okay for me to drive to Redmond and steal the computer off of Bill Gates’ desk. After all, it’s company property and the company doesn’t have property rights, therefore I haven’t really stolen anything have I ?

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    Well then do large corporations who have no owner have property rights?

    When they have shareholders. Shareholders are owners in that business, same as an individual is the owner of a sole proprietorship.

    Is the largest share holder considered the owner for property rights?

    He has the most voting power, but all shareholders have some rights because they all have an ownership stake.

    I can agree that I do not have the right to carry a gun into my workplace, but I cannot accept the fact that the company I work for can order me to be defenseless during my commute by not allowing me to keep a firearm locked in my trunk out of sight.

    You have a right to carry a gun to and from work, but that right stops at the company’s property line (because that’s where their property right start). If you can find a workaround for that, then there’s not a conflict. As for your car, if they ask you to search it you can always say no and they can’t violently force you to comply (such as by breaking in) without violating your rights. They can terminate your employment if you say no, but that was always their right anyway so that doesn’t qualify as force because they’re not obligated to provide you with employment at their company.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Where do you feel my property rights end and their’s begin

    Your property rights don’t end. Your employer can’t break into your car without permission even if its on company property. However, if they have a policy that permits them to ask you to consent to a random search of your car and you refuse, they have the right to tell you to leave.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    No, what they’re asking us to do is throw out property rights to support the right to carry a gun into somebody else’s home or onto somebody else’s property without their consent. That’s what’s called a “home invasion”. I’m all in favor of a property owner being allowed to shoot home invaders…especially if they’re an NRA member who obviously doesn’t believe I have a right to property. As far as I’m concerned those people fall under the same category as a psychopath or a thief.

    Between this and their efforts to torpedo the DC Gun Ban Lawsuit, I’d almost have to say that the NRA is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    So, yea, OK, let’s tell the people of DC their government is illegitimate and they don’t have to obey it anymore and see how far that gets anyone.

    As Machiavelli pointed out, power for any leader (or government) ultimately derives from the people. If the leader/government attracts the hatred of enough of the people the leader/government will eventually change or topple. If the city of D.C. strips people of the ability to defend themselves and the city police do a bad enough job at policing, eventually the people will take the law into their own hands regardless of how many regulations or restrictions the politicians put on the books. The right to defend yourself and your property transcends the existence of government.

  • Johann

    When exercising property rights – by banning individuals from best providing for their own defense – the property owner is morally bound to provide needed protection for all on his/her property and assumes full liability if such is inadequate. If the property owner refuses to provide adequate security and/or refuses to assume full liability then the property owner does not have the moral right to deny others for providing their own means of self-defense. I believe Ayn Rand would agree.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Johann,

    I believe Ayn Rand would agree.

    Actually I believe she would laugh in your face and then walk away.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Between this and their efforts to torpedo the DC Gun Ban Lawsuit, I’d almost have to say that the NRA is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

    Like I said before, even people who generally have the right ideas can come up with the wrong solutions.

    Seriously, I can’t help but wonder if this kind of bullshit would have flown back when Charlton Heston was the man at the NRA. He believed in gun rights, but he also believed in individual and property rights too (because they’re tied together) and I can’t picture him backing this bullshit. Did they just elect a bunch of complete idiots once he left?

  • http://www.noangst.blogspot.com Mike

    It seems to me that most of you are all for the rights of big business and the government to dictate to you how you are going to live your life, but woefully short on individual rights. Is this a collectivist website?

    I think this sums up why we’re having this disagreement. To you, government and “big business” are one and the same. To us, government is one thing, and anything else is something else. Government shouldn’t have the power to dictate to me how I’m going to live. Neither should it be able to dictate how a business is run, which is exactly what this law would be doing by infringing on the property right of the business.

    My individual rights do not trump anyone else’s, and that includes the property rights of “big business”.

    As an aside, how big does a business have to be before it is considered “big business”? You mentioned “mom and pop” businesses in a favorable light earlier and you seem to be implying that big corporations are generally evil, but where’s the dividing line?

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Johann,

    Sorry, but got to agree with Doug. I seriously doubt that Ayn Rand would say that you have a right to do something with another person’s property that they don’t want you to do.

  • Bill

    Disagree with your premise that possible means realistic. Of course anything is possible and most people can change their circumstances if they have no other obligations. When I was a young single man, I could do anything I wanted. I could quit my job and move to any location I desired and try to establish myself there. But, many, many people get trapped in situations out of their control and do not have even the remote possibilty of changing anything for years. This becomes more and more true the older you get. Once you have a wife and children, you are beholden to make life changing decisions like this with them and they do not always agree. Your parents get older and depend on you to help them through daily life, are you going to tell them I hate my job so screw off I’m moving two thousand miles away? What if a family member comes down with a terminal disease? Are you going to tell them to bite it because you hate your job and need to move across the country to find one that more suits your needs? I guess you could do those things, they are possible, but are they really realistic? If you did decide to tell everyone who cares about you to go to hell, then you wouldn’t be the type of person I would want to know or associate with.

    No, I brought this up because one of you clearly stated in an earlier post that the police have a duty to protect an individual and it has been proven in many, many courts that they do not.

  • http://www.noangst.blogspot.com Mike

    If the city of D.C. strips people of the ability to defend themselves and the city police do a bad enough job at policing, eventually the people will take the law into their own hands regardless of how many regulations or restrictions the politicians put on the books.

    Appropriately enough, AMC is running all 5 Death Wish movies this week, starting with the first yesterday and ending with number 5 Friday. Charles Bronson kicking some ass.

  • http://www.noangst.blogspot.com Mike

    The courts have also held that the First Amendment no longer applies with regard to money and politics. Courts have also held that the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t exist in certain parts of the U.S.

    Just because a court has said something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right thing to do.

  • Bill

    The problem I have with big business is when they decide they are too big and important to have to compete in the free market and make the decision to spend all of their R&D dollars lobbying for protectionist laws or bailouts in DC.

  • Bill

    Mike, of course just because a court makes a ruling doesn’t mean its right. But it does mean we have to live with it.

  • http://www.noangst.blogspot.com Mike

    The problem I have with big business is when they decide they are too big and important to have to compete in the free market and make the decision to spend all of their R&D dollars lobbying for protectionist laws or bailouts in DC.

    Fair enough, but that still doesn’t make them an arm of the government. While this is an admittedly simplistic comparison, their property rights still have just as much weight as another individual’s. (Setting aside the imperfect comparison between an individual and a corporation.)

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Mike,

    Not to mention the fact that Constitutional rights have no relevance when we are talking about relationships that don’t involve the government

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    Disagree with your premise that possible means realistic.

    I didn’t say that “realistic” meant possible. I said that “realistic” meant probable. Probable and possible are not the same thing.

    Of course anything is possible and most people can change their circumstances if they have no other obligations. When I was a young single man, I could do anything I wanted. I could quit my job and move to any location I desired and try to establish myself there. But, many, many people get trapped in situations out of their control and do not have even the remote possibilty of changing anything for years.

    The probability of you relocating has decreased while the inconveniences of doing so have increased. The possibility of you doing so has never changed regardless of any changes in your situation or how old you get. If you’re desperate enough, you’ll find a way to move regardless of the difficulties. And if you can’t then all the laws in the world aren’t going to fix anything for you…they’ll just make life more difficult for everyone else. Not an acceptable tradeoff.

    No, I brought this up because one of you clearly stated in an earlier post that the police have a duty to protect an individual and it has been proven in many, many courts that they do not.

    That would be me, and yes, since I pay their salaries with my taxes they have an obligation to protect my individual rights no matter what any court says because that’s their stated job (“To Protect And Serve”). If they are unwilling to live up this obligation, I consider my obligation to provide them with a livelihood through my taxes or consent null and void regardless of what any court says or what consequences may follow. That’s mainly because I don’t accept that courts and laws give us our rights…our rights were there before government existed and the government’s only function is to enforce our rights and protect our rights from the infringements of others. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then I consider my moral obligation to abide by that government at an end.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    just because a court makes a ruling doesn’t mean its right. But it does mean we have to live with it.

    No, we don’t. There are certainly consequences for refusing to live with those rulings, but ultimately it’s up to us whether we choose to abide by them or not.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bill,

    The problem I have with big business is when they decide they are too big and important to have to compete in the free market and make the decision to spend all of their R&D dollars lobbying for protectionist laws or bailouts in DC.

    Actually, we’re against that here too. I’ve personally got no gripe with any business, no matter how big or how small, until they start infringing upon my personal freedoms or my right to property.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    And as a lawyer I will say that there are exceptions to every precedent.

    Additionally, I am familiar with the Court rulings that Bill is taking about. Fundamentally, they are based upon a legal concept known as “soverign immunity” which basically means that the government is immune from civil liability when performing it’s “essential” functions, of which law enforcement is one.

    I don’t necessarily agree with this doctrine, but I also don’t think that the state (which is ultimately the taxpayers) should be held financially liable every time the police fail to show up in time to prevent a crime from happening.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    I don’t necessarily agree with this doctrine, but I also don’t think that the state (which is ultimately the taxpayers) should be held financially liable every time the police fail to show up in time to prevent a crime from happening.

    And if the city of D.C. and their string of shitbird civic leaders hadn’t made it almost impossible for homeowners to defend themselves because of that gun ban, I’d agree. But they did, and so as far as I’m concerned the Warrens and any other victims left defenseless by that law should be able to sue that scumpit into bankruptcy when the police don’t show up to each and every call in a timely fashion. The state wanted the sole responsibility for home defense, the state should bear the full costs.

    Although frankly if I were a D.C. resident in a high-crime area I guarantee I’d be packing lethal force in my home, regardless of what the cops had to say about it.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    I live in the ex-urbs of D.C. I love visiting the city when family visits and they’ve got great restaurants, but there is no way you could pay me enough money to live there.

  • http://www.noangst.blogspot.com Mike

    Not to mention the fact that Constitutional rights have no relevance when we are talking about relationships that don’t involve the government

    Brings to mind the bit Brendan Loy posted about today regarding the court order to force MSNBC to allow Kucinich into their debate. Setting aside the possible breach of contract argument, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private entities. End of story.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Mike,

    Yes, I posted about that myself.

    Last I heard, NBC had appealed and the NV Supreme Court was hearing oral argument this afternoon.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Bill:

    The problem I have with big business is when they decide they are too big and important to have to compete in the free market and make the decision to spend all of their R&D dollars lobbying for protectionist laws or bailouts in DC.

    This will always happen. If there is a party that holds power which impacts me, I will try to lobby that party to wield the power in such a way as to be beneficial to me. The problem is not that the business, individual or interest group is lobbying to get government power wielded to benefit them. Rather, the problem is that the government has that amount of power in the first place.

    The only solution is for the government to have less power. In the original design of this country, with power widely dispersed and diffuse, that sort of lobbying would be very difficult. In our current approach, where most power resides with Congress and the President ……

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    I live in the ex-urbs of D.C. I love visiting the city when family visits and they’ve got great restaurants, but there is no way you could pay me enough money to live there.

    Well, if stuff like this is common I can’t really blame you (Warning: explicit content, drugs, diapers, really disturbing shit)

    http://keithiskneedeepinmud.blogspot.com/2007/10/crack-is-whack.html

  • http://www.noangst.blogspot.com Mike

    Hahaha…I had totally forgotten about that.

    Crack is indeed whack.

  • Robert Ries

    Sure, employees should be able to ban private weapons… as long as they meet the following criteria:

    1) Provide adequete storage space for any self-defense weapons.

    2) Aknowledge that by banning effecient methods of self defense, they are therefore responsible for ensuring the safety of their employees and visitors/customers.

    3) If they fail in the above duty, ownership of their company reverts to the damaged parties, plus a penalty fee of $10,000,000 to each injured individual.

    Fair?

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/stephen/ Stephen Littau

    Robert,

    I agree with what you are driving at. If a business does not take adequate measures to protect employees and customers and they are killed or injured, that business should pay for any and all damages. Shopping malls (for example) that have signs prohibiting concealed carrying of a firearm are giving the criminals an open invitation to shoot the place up.

    If I were a store owner, I would be packing head and I would have a sign posted that would encourage law abiding citizens to carry firearms. The criminals are going to have guns no matter what my sign reads so why not level the playing field?

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/stephen/ Stephen Littau

    I think I would also require my employees to get trained and get a permit (at my expense, of course). All my employees would be armed.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Stephen,

    If I were a store owner, I would be packing head

    Is that supposed to be a euphemism? You don’t share Adam’s man-crush on Fred Thompson, do you? :)

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    On a serious note, I’m all for holding businesses that forbid the carrying of firearms on their premises liable for the protection of their customers. I wouldn’t set a specific dollar amount in legislation, though…that should be for the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/stephen/ Stephen Littau

    oops! I mean packing heat :)

    How does one “pack head” I wonder?

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/stephen/ Stephen Littau

    “I wouldn’t set a specific dollar amount in legislation, though…that should be for the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    How does one “pack head” I wonder?

    I’m not even going there…too easy :)

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/stephen/ Stephen Littau

    Wow, 100 comments with not a single mention of Ron Paul in the post!

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Wow, 100 comments with not a single mention of Ron Paul in the post!

    This post is part of the media conspiracy to smear and ignore Ron Paul led by Doug and his minions. Ron Paul will call down bolts of lightening and fry the Zionist statists and create the wonderful, Constitutional paradise our Founding Fathers intended. He’ll stop the evil Federal Reserve (who did 9/11) from destroying the People’s money. He’ll also get all those hoarding kulaks. Just listen to Alex Jones for the truth. VOTE rOn PAul in 08!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop the New World Order!!

    Also, who is this “Stephen Littau”? An Illuminati propagandist if you ask me. :)

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Stephen & Kevin,

    Damn it!!! You two just had to go and fucking ruin it, didn’t you? :)

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    This post is part of the media conspiracy to smear and ignore Ron Paul led by Doug and his minions.

    Minions ? I have minions ?

  • http://noangst.blogspot.com mike

    Uh, so is that minions post included in the drinking game? Because I was thinking about going to grab a beer, but I think I’d need 3 or 4 just to get through that comment.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Mike,

    Yes, it is. Although Kevin was just having fun…he’s not a Paulestinian so his remark doesn’t qualify. :)

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    Minions ? I have minions ?

    Yes, Doug Mata-cLOwN-is, you have minions…where have you been? That’s been rule 13 for like three days :)

  • http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/ Stephen Littau

    Hey, I’ve been a minion for almost a year already!

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    mike,

    Uh, so is that minions post included in the drinking game? Because I was thinking about going to grab a beer, but I think I’d need 3 or 4 just to get through that comment.

    I’m giving myself a shot of whiskey :)

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Stephen,

    Didn’t I tell you this ? The first rule of being a minion, is don’t admit to being a minion.

    The second rule is that I like two sugars in my coffee ;)

    Kevin,

    Revealing the existence of the conspiracy is a serious offense.

    I have no choice but to discuss this with Dick Cheney, David Rockefeller, and the guys at Cato.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Doug,

    Please don’t send me to Iraq, please don’t send me to Iraq, NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (as I’m being dragged away by a couple guys from Blackwater)

  • Aimee

    As far as “packing head” goes, if you were into the mob thing, I would go with either a small cooler, or a duffle bag ; )

  • tax deduction?

    That would be me, and yes, since I pay their salaries with my taxes they have an obligation to protect my individual rights no matter what any court says because that’s their stated job (”To Protect And Serve”). If they are unwilling to live up this obligation, I consider my obligation to provide them with a livelihood through my taxes or consent null and void regardless of what any court says or what consequences may follow. That’s mainly because I don’t accept that courts and laws give us our rights…our rights were there before government existed and the government’s only function is to enforce our rights and protect our rights from the infringements of others. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then I consider my moral obligation to abide by that government at an end.

    UCrawford,
    Have you, or anyone that you know of, withheld taxes for this reason? Did the govt. resume services due to this? How did this work out for you, or anyone else, just curious.

  • Harry Rossman

    Actually that’s the cops who would need probable cause to search your vehicle. If you’re on my property I can request to search your vehicle for no more reason than that I’m an asshole, and I don’t need the involvement of the police at all. Although you’re free to reject my request and I’m free to tell you to leave.

    And I am free to take out advertisements advising caution and forethought when dealing with your company or business. For example, you see no issue with putting your employees on the spot simply because, but I am willing to bet long odds that the same “request” is not made to your customers. You have the power of discrimination to do this. However, your practice of this type of discrimination tells volumes on just how you do business and what kind of – ahhh – person you are.

    Personally, should I, as a customer, be confronted with a demand to let myself and vehicle be searched, I would leave the premises and immediately call and cancel whatever order I just placed. If I had just made a small purchase, I would take it back. If not allowed time to do so because of a direct request, I would do so via mail.

    Nice fallacy of the complex question…

    (What is a right?)

    No, this is not a fallacy. It is a question whose answer is central to the application of law, business practices and social interaction. Individual rights and property rights are one and the same, since both are intrinsic to people individually.

    And yes. There really is an answer which is practical and applicable.

    You have a right to carry a gun to and from work, but that right stops at the company’s property line (because that’s where their property right start).

    Property – Something that is owned or possessed. Property may be real (land), personal, tangible (touchable), or intangible (such as the interest in a play or other creative work)

    http://www.ots.treas.gov/glossary/gloss-p.html

    Land – Real property or any interest therein.

    http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/25cfr151_01.html

    Premises – A physical location that represents a unique and describable geographic entity where activity affecting the health and/or traceability of animals may occur.

    http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/User_Guide.htm

    In Georgia, misdemeanor trespass is what someone would be charged with when directed to leave, and he/she does not.

    As I mentioned in a previous post, I find this to be draconian and worthy of legally accepted response. As can be seen from the posted definitions and sources, property rights have traditionally dealt with use and development of property: not the advancement of a social agenda.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Harry:

    And I am free to take out advertisements advising caution and forethought when dealing with your company or business. For example, you see no issue with putting your employees on the spot simply because, but I am willing to bet long odds that the same “request” is not made to your customers. You have the power of discrimination to do this. However, your practice of this type of discrimination tells volumes on just how you do business and what kind of – ahhh – person you are.

    Yes, you are free to take out such advertising. I haven’t said otherwise. All rights are important, not just mine. Not just yours. Your belief appears to be that your individual right to bear a firearm should trump mine as the owner of a piece of property to determine how my property is used.

    Personally, should I, as a customer, be confronted with a demand to let myself and vehicle be searched, I would leave the premises and immediately call and cancel whatever order I just placed. If I had just made a small purchase, I would take it back. If not allowed time to do so because of a direct request, I would do so via mail.

    I assume, then, that you do not give any of your business to Best Buy? They request to search you every time you leave the store. I also assume that you don’t go to Disneyland, or any other amusement park, since they also request to search you every time you enter the park (and do have a policy that says they can request to search your vehicle on their property).

    As I mentioned in a previous post, I find this to be draconian and worthy of legally accepted response. As can be seen from the posted definitions and sources, property rights have traditionally dealt with use and development of property: not the advancement of a social agenda.

    So my desire to determine what is brought on my property is a social agenda, not a determination of use or development? Really? If I have said (as I have) that I am in favor of gun ownership unrestricted by government regulation of any sort, what social agenda would I be promoting if I then turn around and say that I don’t want a gun brought onto my private property? I have no social agenda, I just don’t want anyone else to bring a firearm onto my property. That seems to be well within how I use the land.

    I would argue that you have your own social agenda and you intend to use threat of violence (i.e. government regulation) to make me accept your agenda and trump my property rights.

    Why do you feel justified in using threatened violence via proxy to make me accept your agenda?

  • Harry Rossman

    TLANTA — Georgia senators passed a compromise gun-rights bill Thursday, hoping to defuse a bitter dispute between two of the Republican Party’s staunchest allies.
    The legislation, which was approved 41-15, would allow motorists to carry a gun inside their car anywhere they wish. Current law restricts firearms to being stored inside the glove compartment or in plain view.

    But the bill’s most controversial provision, which senators added to the original House measure, would prohibit business owners from forbidding their workers from leaving guns inside their cars parked in employee lots that are also accessible to the public.

    The National Rifle Association pushed hard for the provision last year, part of a multi-state campaign for employee gun rights stemming from an incident in Oklahoma, where Weyerhaeuser Corp. fired eight workers for violating a company policy against keeping guns in their cars at work.

    The NRA threatened to condition their endorsements of Georgia lawmakers on how they voted on the bill.

    But the measure died late in last year’s General Assembly session when the Georgia Chamber of Commerce objected that the provision would violate the private property rights of business owners.

    Determined not to repeat last year’s divisive battle, the bill’s Republican backers crafted a compromise that would significantly limit the provision’s impact.

    Under the compromise approved Thursday, the parking-lot provision would only apply to the approximately 300,000 Georgians holding state-issued firearms licenses.

    To satisfy the chamber, it also stipulates that any property owner who wishes to ban firearms from his property may do so.

    “This bill is only about the relationship between employers and employees,” said Sen. Chip Rogers, R-Woodstock, the bill’s sponsor.

    Gov. Sonny Perdue spoke out publicly against the bill in a speech on Tuesday, but then went to work behind the scenes to help shape the compromise.

    “These were the types of constraints we were asking for,” the governor said Thursday shortly before the legislation hit the Senate floor. “This is the proper balance between the Second Amendment and our precious property rights.”

    Senators also made several other changes to the bill, including a provision allowing owners of state firearms licenses to carry their weapons at state parks and historic sites.

    Supporters cited this month’s murder of Meredith Emerson, 24, of Buford, who was killed while hiking at a state park in North Georgia.

    The bill now goes back to the House for a vote on the Senate changes.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    It would appear that you have gotten at least some of the government intrusion into private and voluntary transactions that you wanted. How are you any different from a progressive who wants to regulate what a business can do with its property?

  • Harry Rossman

    Your belief appears to be that your individual right to bear a firearm should trump mine as the owner of a piece of property to determine how my property is used.

    As has been pointed out, by counsel, defense and protection of myself and my family is my individual responsibility. Not yours, not law enforcement. Any action law enforcement takes is always after the fact. Any action you take will be not just after the fact but most likely after a lengthy court battle: should I or mine survive to begin with.

    Many are not aware of this, but security guards are not law enforcement. They are citizens in a uniform whose legal duty is to observe and take notes. Not protect. The enforcement of company policy does not rest directly with the security apparatus, but with company management and law enforcement. In an egregious circumstance, security personnel must, by law, first advise management, then, if necessary, law enforcement. The *only* time a security officer can use deadly force is if *he/she* are directly attacked in a manner in which an ordinary citizen would be recognized to use deadly force.

    As has been well established with other rights, no right is absolute: nor should it be.

    I assume, then, that you do not give any of your business to Best Buy? They request to search you every time you leave the store. I also assume that you don’t go to Disneyland, or any other amusement park, since they also request to search you every time you enter the park (and do have a policy that says they can request to search your vehicle on their property).

    Actually, I am quite picky about where I shop and whom I do business with. Stated firearms policy being far down on the list of reasons.

    So my desire to determine what is brought on my property is a social agenda, not a determination of use or development?

    What reveals your agenda is your proactive approach and draconian actions. You, by assumption only, place law abiding citizens in the position of unfair termination if they agree to your “request” for a vehicular search, arrest for misdemeanor trespass if they speak up.

    This practice is at best odious, at worst counterproductive to business and social practices.

    Determination of use or development traditionally has been just what business(es) and type(s) of building(s) you are constructing. You will be offering one or more products and/or services for sale. Determining who does and does not have a firearm is not the purvue of any business or service an ordinary citizen would provide.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Harry:

    Determination of use or development traditionally has been just what business(es) and type(s) of building(s) you are constructing.

    Ahhhhh, so you don’t believe in the freedom to associate only with those whom I want to on my own property? My property rights end at my ability to decide what sort of building I will construct on it, other than that my ability to use my property as I deem fit can and should be regulated, especially if you believe I have a “social agenda”. Social agenda, in the way you use it, means that I don’t agree with you, as far as I can tell.

    Actually, I am quite picky about where I shop and whom I do business with. Stated firearms policy being far down on the list of reasons.

    Ahhhh, but you didn’t answer my question. Amusement parks, to include Disneyland, have very stringent policies on searches and firearms. You said, earlier:

    Personally, should I, as a customer, be confronted with a demand to let myself and vehicle be searched, I would leave the premises and immediately call and cancel whatever order I just placed.

    I pointed out that Disneyland (and all other privately owned amusement parks I know of) have such policies. You said you would leave immediately and cancel your purchases. I assume that means that you do not go to amusement parks and that you never will. Could you just answer that question?

    What reveals your agenda is your proactive approach and draconian actions. You, by assumption only, place law abiding citizens in the position of unfair termination if they agree to your “request” for a vehicular search, arrest for misdemeanor trespass if they speak up.

    Well, no, that is not at all what I’ve said. I’ve said that a company, or individual, on property that they own, have the ability to do such a thing. I’ve never said I would do it. I’ve also said that if you were to refuse to leave my property upon request that I would call law enforcement to enforce my property rights. I bet you are all for property rights when it comes to you using your firearm to shoot someone on your property who doesn’t leave when you want them to. But if I want you to leave because I don’t want you and your firearm on my property, my property rights are just wrong, aren’t they?

    Harry, you’re an inconsistent fraud. You approve of government intrusion on private transactions and activities when it fits your beliefs, but oppose it when it doesn’t. I want government out of all private transactions, even if I don’t like those transactions on a personal level. Which of those positions is internally consistent? I suppose you think you are pro rights and pro liberty too, which is where the fraud portion of that comes from.

  • Harry Rossman

    Adam;

    Ahhhhh, so you don’t believe in the freedom to associate only with those whom I want to on my own property?

    Conducting business selling you a product or service and association are not the same at all. In conducting business one or more of my team will interact with you to provide what you want. I personally may not know you exist.

    Social agenda, in the way you use it, means that I don’t agree with you, as far as I can tell.

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…. *You* are the one who is instituting a policy of inquiry and condemnation. *You* are the one who not only does not agree, but will intentionally place me in a situation of confrontation and social ostracism.

    Well, no, that is not at all what I’ve said. I’ve said that a company, or individual, on property that they own, have the ability to do such a thing.

    I have said that I agree with this statement. I have also said that the method of direct inquiry without cause both place the law abiding citizen in a position of social ostracism and is an odious practice sufficient to prevent business transactions or association with you.

    I’ve also said that if you were to refuse to leave my property upon request that I would call law enforcement to enforce my property rights

    This, I have also agreed with. In quoting my statement, you must have read this.(??)

    I bet you are all for property rights when it comes to you using your firearm to shoot someone on your property who doesn’t leave when you want them to.

    These are YOUR words. NOT mine. I have said nothing at all to imply or support such an outrageous position.

    Harry, you’re an inconsistent fraud.

    Chuckle!!! Aren’t we all at times…… More seriously though, name calling is a sure sign that your ability to refute my points and expand on the discussion has reached it’s end.

    You approve of government intrusion on private transactions and activities when it fits your beliefs, but oppose it when it doesn’t. I want government out of all private transactions, even if I don’t like those transactions on a personal level. Which of those positions is internally consistent? I suppose you think you are pro rights and pro liberty too, which is where the fraud portion of that comes from.

    I truly do not know where to begin with this, other than to point out that government performs those duties which we, as individuals, would find onerous or impossible to do ourselves. In addition, it is the duty of government to support and protect those rights which the people – all citizens – have. It does this through laws which place limits on the actions of society and individuals.

    It is the interpretation of those law’s scope and intent after the fact which requires lawyers and judges.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Harry, why won’t you answer my question? You made a statement of principle and now avoid answering a question directly related to that principle.

    I explained what I find inconsistent about your position, and what I find fraudulent. You claim that name calling means I can’t find ways to overcome your arguments, but that’s incorrect. I am pointing out those things in your position.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/ Adam Selene

    Oh, by the way, you continuously say that >I< want to do something. I have continuously pointed out that I am standing up for the rights of people, and have never claimed that I want to do anything other than keep those rights sacrosanct and keep government from intruding on the private, voluntary transactions of you and I. You are the one who wishes to use government to regulate what I can do.

    That said, I think I’ve had my last word on this thread. Feel free to respond, but I doubt I will.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com