I talk about guns at work.
If they could fire me without a decent reason, they'd have already done it years ago.
If an employer doesn't want firearms, Fords, motorcycles, alcohol, or whatever else on his property, I agree it's his/her right. But how would it be different if some body had Obama or ditch Mitch stickers plastered all over their car and the employer decided that was not acceptable? I suspect no body would support an employer trying to stifle somebody's 1st amendment rights...
As I've said other threads, I agree that you don't have any "rights" when on someone else's property.
But you do have Rights on (or "in") your own property (your vehicle).
You have a Right to carry a firearm when on the street.
Your employer can tell you not to "carry" on their property but they can't tell you not to carry to & from work (which in effect is what they are doing by banning guns on their property).
I also said that I agreed that the government can make laws (& have) that balance the Rights of two people who's Rights collide.
In this case the government made a law that was narrowly tailored & very specific to a special case as a (yes, I'm going to sway it...) COMPROMISE between those two Rights.
I also agree that you TECHNICALLY have the option to not work there but it has been determined that there is a special relationship between employer & employee that restricts the completely unfettered rights of the employer.
Do you also have a problem with OSHA laws that mandate that an employer has to provide a safe working environment? Do you disagree with the laws that say the employer can't legally make you work off the clock (IOW, for free) as a requirement to keep your job? As an employer you have SOME legal responsibilities to your employees.
This law is along those same lines, IMHO. It minimally restricts the property Rights of the employer while allowing the employee to exercise his Rights as well, but to a lesser degree (locked up out of sight).
I think it's reasonable.
This is the core of the problem, IMO. I disagree with this, regardless of whether it's legal precedent or not.
I appreciate the argument that says, "Yes, by the strictest interpretation of natural rights, this is a violation of property rights, but in the real world in which we live, where employer's rights have been already limited, is this not a reasonable limitation?"
In that context, the answer would be, "Yes."
Yet, many of the people I'm addressing here have argued very absolutist positions for the rights THEY hold dear. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
& I can appreciate that, too.
That's why I try to NEVER be an absolutist. Notice I said try .
When you see EVERYTHING in black & white it definitely limits your options.
There are some things that everyone says they will never compromise on. & as soon as they say that then suddenly they are confronted with a situation which forces them to admit that, "well, Ok, I might compromise on that...but just this once!" Suddenly your credibility is in question.
No Right is absolute. No legal theorist in history has ever HONESTLY promoted that idea. Even the Founders with their "inalienable" Rights didn't ACTUALLY fully believe that. There were laws even then that limited ones Rights so as not to infringe on those of others. The goal, though, should be the most limited restriction on either party's Rights as possible.
It's the whole "your Rights end where others begin" concept.
Property owners Rights do not trump EVERYTHING else.
No one would suggest that it would be a property owners right to set off nuclear explosions on their land (or any other less extreme example you can think of in which ones actions on their property affect the Rights of others ), would they?
In this case, the employers Right to control their property is minimally limited by the Right of the employee to carry to & from work.
A lot of this discussion has gone how I expected and what I didn't see discussed was the private property issue. Yes the business is private property but therein also is your car not your private property? Therefore you are permissable to carry within your property as long as you don't leave your vehicle while carrying? What bothers me is that we are completely responsible for the contents of our vehicle HOWEVER it seems that we can not contain anything we want in our vehicle by some of the opinions expressed here. I am not insulting or stirring the pot but where do we draw the line on who's property is what and who is responsible for what?